Plate 11. The Canal called “Singel” in Amsterdam. On the left-hand side Rembrandt's son, Titus, lived during his short married life. In the distance, the “Janroopoortstoren”. After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650.
In trying to reconstruct a picture of Amsterdam in Rembrandt's time, we must realise the architectural forms as well as the colours. It is natural that the town's colouristic aspect should harmonize with the colour schemes which we admire in Holland, in its landscapes, [pg 127] [pg 130] on its rivers and seacoast, in the pictorial masterpieces of its artists and in its interiors, which means that in the city also we are fascinated by the richness of tints, always subdued and variegated by a certain haziness. It is a richness of a very subtle nature: no opposition of strong tints, but an endless, mostly light-scaled variety of transitions, now and then relieved by a more powerful note like the red of a roof or the paint of a boat; these higher notes are generally of a freshness as if they had been washed by a recent rain. Against a sky, of which the blue or the clouds bear a bloom of a silvery hue, the houses show the tone of their bricks going from red-brown to a pale purple in so many deviations that the uniform indication of red would be unjust. The trembling of the lights and shades of water all through the town and the green of so many trees planted along the quays, were of course two conditions which strongly helped in producing a particular colouristic charm and which meant an advantage over so many foreign towns. Both these elements were and are still not to be found to such an extent in any other city, Venice naturally excepted on account of her waterways. Concentrating our attention rather on colour than shape, we might retain for one moment the comparison with Venice, as it may help us to understand still better the value of what we were just admiring in Amsterdam. By reason of their situation, their prosperity, their universality, their natural educational advantages, both towns were, so to say, bound to produce a great school of painters, and we need not here allude to the glory with which both towns covered themselves on this field in the eyes of the art world. Stress should, however, be laid here on the fact that the two [pg 131] [pg 132] towns in question brought forth the two greatest schools of colourists, a fact which shows how in these centres circumstances favour the development of colouristic talents. Mindful of the fact that the great painters are our teachers in the appreciation of nature's beauties and charms, we should, for our own instruction, contrast the two schools and try to discern the difference in their common merits. We shall then notice that “richness in colour” does not mean the same in both cities. As opposed to the abundance of glowing colours on the exuberant Venetian palette, we should place the subtile gradations, the well-balanced and restrained splendour and the endless variations of the seemingly restricted colour scale of the Dutch artist. We shall so learn to love both better than we did before and, needless to say, our eyes will then be more open to the value of Amsterdam's scenery which so often inspired or stimulated the painters.
Plate 12. The Tower called “Swyght-Utrecht”, and the “Doelen” in Amsterdam (see [plate 20]). After the drawing by Rembrandt in the collection of Dr. C. Hofsteded de Groot, The Hague.
After this little excursion let us reconsider the town's appearance. In doing so, we must remember that it was already highly flourishing when Rembrandt settled within its ramparts; consequently it is clear that by far the greater part of the living houses belonged to the more picturesque preceding period. The houses generally had three or four stories, and their fronts were without exception crowned by pointed gables, most of them stepped. In the older quarters, where the houses were more crowded together, they very often had more stories and were strangely tall, but everywhere that irregular saw-like profile, formed by the steep-pitched gable-tops, appeared silhouetted against the sky (horizontal roof-lines, more in accordance with the new style of Van Campen, were slowly introduced but remained [pg 133] [pg 136] scarce). All these house-fronts were, as we said before, gay in colour and enlivened by sandstone ornaments, windows with their small glistening panes set in lead, brightly painted shutters, here and there woodwork decorating the house-fronts, and as a rule an artistically carved stone-panel with figures and inscription or date lending a separate character to each house. The house in which Rembrandt passed most of the years and in which he knew fortune and fame as well as sorrow and reverse, offers a good type of the then prevailing domestic architecture ([plate 16]). The house still exists and has become, since its restoration, a few years ago, a place of pilgrimage for art-loving tourists. We must, however, here call attention to a fact which is generally unknown to the public, namely, that, though restored, the house does not appear as it probably looked when Rembrandt lived in it. This does not so much apply to the interior, because everybody will understand the impossibility of reconstructing the artist's direct surroundings, for lack of the furniture and works of art with which Rembrandt had crowded it. More noteworthy is the fact that the facade has quite a different character. The outer appearance of a house should as much as possible give a true illustration of the time at which it was built, especially as this one had retained its original form, apparently, when its greatest occupant inhabited it. In its restored condition it still preserves important additions which date from a later period. The two sketches on [plate 16] show us how the original picturesque stepped gable was changed into a cornice with a tympanon, giving a different appearance to the house. Any eye familiar with Dutch architecture will detect in the front, in its present state, a difference in period between [pg 137] [pg 138] its lower and upper part. The latter is about fifty years later, and the whole shows a mixture of the two styles which we have described: the earlier, varied style of a De Keyser and the later, more classical style of Van Campen's school (his pupil Vingboons?). Probability, based on maps and documents like Rembrandt's inventory of 1656, and a recently discovered account regarding alterations done by the subsequent owners, and, moreover, the convincing difference in style, lead us to the conviction that the alteration in the front dates very shortly after Rembrandt's departure from the house, i.e. about 1660, when it was divided into two narrower residences. The house-front, as it looks now, was probably familiar to Rembrandt in the last ten years of his life, even though we take into consideration his probable disinclination to look again and again at the place, where he had passed twenty years of his life, and where misfortune had cruelly put an end to better days; it is, however, an open question whether such a consideration offers sufficient ground for a restoration of the kind recently carried out. Nevertheless we have to be thankful to the trustees that the house was saved, because it is Rembrandt's most intimate memorial, aside from his own work, left to posterity.
Plate 13. The Tower Called “Westertoren” In Amsterdam. After the drawing by Rembrandt, in the Fodor Museum, Amsterdam
Plate 14. The Canal called “Prinsengracht” in Amsterdam. The tower seen on the left is the same as seen in the preceding illustration. After an etching by R. Zeeman, about 1650.
